IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[Tony Luck]

After I posted my description of how I'm using Bitkeeper trees
to manage the ia64 part of Linux I got some feedback.  Len Brown
kindly talked me through how he runs a 2-phase/2-stage set of
trees for ACPI ... and after a while it began to make sense (the
layout of the trees, not ACPI :-).  So I've set up a similar set
of four trees:


          +--------------+     +-----------------+
          | test-2.6.9   |     | release-2.6.9   |
          +--------------+     +-----------------+
                  ^                     ^
                  |                     |
          +--------------+     +-----------------+
          | test-2.6.8.1 | ->  | release-2.6.8.1 |
          +--------------+     +-----------------+

Work begins at the bottom left, which is a clone of Linus's tree when he
applied the v2.6.8.1 label.  I apply patches there, and do whatever
compile/boot tests I need to make me feel comfortable about the patches.
I can then push/pull them up to the test-2.6.9 tree which is based on
Linus's latest (by pulling each day) and re-compile there to make sure
that the changes don't conflict with other changes to the base.  Andrew
Morton can then pull from the upper left tree to feed into "-mm"
expose the changes to a wider test audience.

Once the changes are suitably aged, I'll pull them over to the "release"
trees, which are the staging area for Linus to pull from.

The actual names all have "linux-ia64-" prepended.  E.g.

   http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-test-2.6.9

The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release.

Len also gave me a script to create plain patches for non-BK
users ... I'll make the tweaks to the pathnames and get those
running soon.

-Tony

Re: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[Ian Wienand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:38PM +0000, Tony Luck wrote:
> The actual names all have "linux-ia64-" prepended.  E.g.
> 
>   http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-test-2.6.9
> 
> The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release.

I don't know how or if it's even possible, but is there some way to
make a linux-ia64-test-latest symbolic link (or something) that you
can pull from to always have the latest testing tree?  

The initial reason I wanted this was because we clone the tree to a
local server and then do local clones from that to save bandwidth, and
I'd have to write a script to automatically figure out when the tree
changed over and re-clone it every time.  But I think it would be just
generally handy.

-i
ianw@gelato.unsw.edu.au
http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:09:38 +0000, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> said:

  Tony> The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release.

I don't see the point of this.  It makes it painful for me to stay
current with the latest ia64 tree.  Why not just use tags to mark
releases?

	--david

Re: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[Jesse Barnes]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2004 6:09 pm, Tony Luck wrote:
> The actual names all have "linux-ia64-" prepended.  E.g.
>
>    http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-test-2.6.9
>
> The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release.
>
> Len also gave me a script to create plain patches for non-BK
> users ... I'll make the tweaks to the pathnames and get those
> running soon.

Maybe I'm just used to the old method, but doesn't this make it harder to just 
do a 'pull' on an existing tree to merge one's changes up to the latest code?  
It also seems like it makes it more confusing if you ask Linus to pull 
multiple times in a release cycle.  I liked your first message about trees 
better. :)  In particular, this part:

> I've set up two bitkeeper trees too:
>         http://lia64.bkbits.net/to-base-2.6
> is my holding area for patches that I want Linus to pull.
> 
>         http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-2.6
> will be a place for me to stash changesets that I'm not ready
> to push (or for any non-ia64 specific changes that I want to
> play with).  At the moment there is nothing in this tree that
> isn't also queued in the to-base-2.6 tree.
> 
> Summary: For 99% of uses, you can clone a tree from Linus and
> use it on ia64.  If you are sending a sequence of related patches
> and know that I've taken some of them, then either of my trees
> should work for you.

But maybe I'm missing the advantages of the scheme Len is using?

Thanks,
Jesse

RE: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[Luck, Tony]

Ian Wienand wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:38PM +0000, Tony Luck wrote:
>> The actual names all have "linux-ia64-" prepended.  E.g.
>> 
>>   http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-test-2.6.9
>> 
>> The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release.
>
>I don't know how or if it's even possible, but is there some way to
>make a linux-ia64-test-latest symbolic link (or something) that you
>can pull from to always have the latest testing tree?

It wasn't possible last week ... but "ask and ye shall receive". Larry
McVoy added a symlink feature to the bkbits.net admin interface for us
(Thanks Larry).

So what would you like the names of the symlinks to be?  I'm thinking
of:

   linux-ia64-release-2.6.8.1 -> release-2.6
   linux-ia64-test-2.6.8.1    -> test-2.6
   linux-ia64-release-2.6.9   -> release-2.6.next
   linux-ia64-test-2.6.9      -> test-2.6.next

but I'd be happy to entertain better suggstions.

-Tony

Re: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again)

[Ian Wienand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:45:23AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> So what would you like the names of the symlinks to be?  I'm thinking
> of:
> 
>    linux-ia64-release-2.6.8.1 -> release-2.6
>    linux-ia64-test-2.6.8.1    -> test-2.6
>    linux-ia64-release-2.6.9   -> release-2.6.next
>    linux-ia64-test-2.6.9      -> test-2.6.next
> 
> but I'd be happy to entertain better suggstions.

Just an idea (and I may have misunderstood the process); why not name
the trees for the people they are going to, for example

test-2.6         -> linux-ia64-tony (the main IA64 development area)
test-2.6.next    -> linux-ia64-to-mm (patches waiting to go to -mm series)
release-2.6.next -> linux-ia64-to-linus (patches waiting to go to official kernel)

I'm still not sure where the other release tree fits in all of this
though. 

Under this my thinking was a developer sends (non-trivial) patch that
first goes into -tony where it makes the core ia64 developers happy,
gets moved into -mm where it is picked up and used by a wider
audience, eventually it gets put into -linus where it is moved into
the main kernel.  Smaller patches, like a compile fix or whatever, go
straight from -tony to -linus?

-i

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]